SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
|
|
- Ernest Shields
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA ORCA COMMUNICATIONS UNLIMITED, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ANN J. NODER AND CHRISTOPHER C. NODER, WIFE AND HUSBAND; PITCH PUBLIC RELATIONS, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Defendants/Appellees. No. CV PR Filed November 19, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable John A. Buttrick No. CV REVERSED AND REMANDED of Appeals, Division One 233 Ariz. 411, 314 P.3d 89 (App. 2013) AFFIRMED IN PART; DEPUBLISHED IN PART COUNSEL: David B. Earl (argued), Phoenix, for Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC Monica A. Limón-Wynn (argued), Law Offices of Monica A. Limón-Wynn Law PLLC, Tempe, for Ann J. Noder, Christopher C. Noder and Pitch Public Relations, LLC VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER authored the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE BALES, JUSTICE BERCH, JUSTICE BRUTINEL, and JUSTICE TIMMER joined.
2 VICE CHIEF JUSTICE PELANDER, opinion of the Court: 1 Arizona s Uniform Trade Secrets Act ( AUTSA ), A.R.S to -407, creates an exclusive cause of action and displaces conflicting causes of action for claims based on the misappropriation of trade secrets. We hold that AUTSA does not displace common-law claims based on alleged misappropriation of confidential information that is not a trade secret. I. 2 Because the superior court dismissed the plaintiff s complaint pursuant to Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), we look only to the pleading itself and consider the well-pled factual allegations contained therein. Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419 7, 189 P.3d 344, 346 (2008). The complaint alleges that between 2002 and 2009, Ann Noder served as president of Orca Communications Unlimited, LLC ( Orca ), a public relations company. During that time, she had access to its contracts, financial data, and customer information. After a failed negotiation to purchase Orca in early 2009, Noder informed some of Orca s customers that she was starting a competing company, Pitch Public Relations, LLC, and urged them to do business with her new company instead of with Orca. Noder resigned from Orca in May This action by Orca against Noder and her company followed. 3 In the only claim at issue here unfair competition Orca alleged that Noder had learned confidential and trade secret information about Orca, including information about Orca s business model, operating procedures, techniques, and strengths and weaknesses. Orca further alleged that Noder intended to steal[] and exploit that information and Orca s customers to gain a competitive advantage for her company. 4 The superior court dismissed Orca s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), concluding that AUTSA preempts Orca s common law tort claims arising from the alleged misuse of confidential information, even as to information not asserted to rise to the level of a trade secret. The court of appeals reversed in part, holding that AUTSA preempts Orca s unfaircompetition claim to the extent it is based on misappropriation of a trade secret, but that AUTSA does not preempt a claim based on the misuse of confidential information that does not rise to the level of [a] trade secret. 2
3 Orca Commc ns Unlimited, LLC v. Noder, 233 Ariz. 411, , , 314 P.3d 89, 97, 99 (App. 2013). 5 We granted review because the scope of AUTSA s displacement of common-law tort claims is a legal issue of statewide importance. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S II. 6 We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6). Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355 7, 284 P.3d 863, 866 (2012). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is appropriate only if as a matter of law [the] plaintiff[] would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts susceptible of proof. Id. at 356 8, 284 P.3d at 867 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). A. 7 The Arizona Legislature enacted AUTSA in 1990 and adopted most of the provisions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which codifies the basic principles of common-law trade-secret protection, to govern the resolution of trade-secret issues. Enter. Leasing Co. of Phx. v. Ehmke, 197 Ariz. 144, , 3 P.3d 1064, 1068 (App. 1999). AUTSA defines trade secret as information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique or process, that both: (a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use. (b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy. A.R.S (4). 8 This case requires us to interpret the scope of AUTSA s displacement provision, which states as follows: 3
4 Id A. Except as provided in subsection B, this chapter displaces conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws of this state providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret. B. This chapter does not affect: 1. Contractual remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret. 2. Other civil remedies that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret. 3. Criminal remedies, whether or not based on misappropriation of a trade secret. B. 9 If a statute is unambiguous, we apply its terms without resorting to other tools of statutory interpretation, unless doing so leads to impossible or absurd results. N. Valley Emergency Specialists, L.L.C. v. Santana, 208 Ariz. 301, 303 9, 93 P.3d 501, 503 (2004). Noder asserts that broadly displaces all common-law claims for misuse of confidential information that does not fall within AUTSA s definition of trade secret. We disagree. On its face, displaces only conflicting tort claims for misappropriation of a trade secret, terms AUTSA specifically defines, A.R.S (2), (4), and leaves undisturbed claims that are not based on misappropriation of a trade secret, id (A), (B)(2). Nothing in this language suggests that the legislature intended to displace any cause of action other than one for misappropriation of a trade secret. 10 In addition to giving a broader preemptive sweep than that statute s text supports, Noder s argument conflicts with another well-established principle. If the legislature seeks to preempt a cause of action[,]... the law s text or at least the legislative record should say so explicitly. Hayes v. Cont l Ins. Co., 178 Ariz. 264, 273, 872 P.2d 668, 677 (1994). Absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent to displace a 4
5 common-law cause of action, we interpret statutes with every intendment in favor of consistency with the common law. Pleak v. Entrada Prop. Owners Ass n, 207 Ariz. 418, , 87 P.3d 831, 835 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Although we do not decide here whether Arizona common law recognizes a claim for unfair competition, see infra 21, we are reluctant to interpret a statute in favor of denial or preemption of tort claims even those that are not or may not be constitutionally protected if there is any reasonable doubt about the legislature s intent. Hayes, 178 Ariz. at 272, 872 P.2d at 676; see A.R.S (adopting the common law as the rule of decision in Arizona courts except when repugnant to or inconsistent with Arizona s Constitution or laws or the Federal Constitution). 11 [I]t is not the function of the courts to rewrite statutes. The choice of the appropriate wording rests with the Legislature, and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Legislature. City of Phoenix v. Butler, 110 Ariz. 160, 162, 515 P.2d 1180, 1182 (1973) (citation omitted). At the least, s text creates reasonable doubt about the legislature s intent regarding displacement of common-law claims that do not involve trade secrets as defined in AUTSA. See Hayes, 178 Ariz. at 272, 872 P.2d at 676. Because that displacement provision is expressly limited to claims providing civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret, A.R.S (A), and because Orca s unfair-competition claim, as alleged, is not limited to trade secrets, the superior court erred in dismissing that claim on preemption grounds. 12 Noder argues that refusing to extend s displacement provision beyond its express terms will lead to absurd results because a plaintiff that demonstrates willful and malicious misappropriation of confidential information could possibly recover more punitive damages than a plaintiff that prevails on an AUTSA claim for such misappropriation of a trade secret. We are not persuaded. 13 That AUTSA authorizes a trial court, rather than a jury, to award exemplary damages of no more than twice the amount of actual damages, A.R.S (B), is not necessarily anomalous. In cases of willful and malicious misappropriation of trade secrets, punitive damages might be easier to obtain under AUTSA than under our common law, which requires clear and convincing evidence of a defendant s evil mind for a 5 C.
6 punitive damages award. See Linthicum v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 150 Ariz. 326, 332, 723 P.2d 675, 681 (1986). Unlike other statutes, (B) does not adopt the common law or impose a heightened standard of proof for a punitive damages award. Cf. A.R.S (permitting an award of punitive damages subject to applicable rules of law governing such damages in this jurisdiction ), -701(B) (requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence for an award of punitive damages). Moreover, although punitive damages awards under the common law are not subject to any statutory limits and are generally left to the jury s discretion, Arizona courts quite often overturn or reduce excessive punitive damages awards based on constitutional limitations. See, e.g., Arellano v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 235 Ariz. 371, , 332 P.3d 597, 606 (App. 2014); Nardelli v. Metro. Grp. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 230 Ariz. 592, , 277 P.3d 789, 809 (App. 2012); Hudgins v. Sw. Airlines, Co., 221 Ariz. 472, , 212 P.3d 810, 830 (App. 2009). 14 In addition, AUTSA provides protections and remedies in the trade-secret arena that are not generally available under common law. See A.R.S (permitting injunctive relief for actual or threatened misappropriation), -404 (permitting award of attorney fees), -405 (preserving the secrecy of alleged trade secrets during litigation); Cortaro Water Users Ass n v. Steiner, 148 Ariz. 314, 316, 714 P.3d 807, 809 (1986) (noting the general rule that attorney fees are not recoverable unless provided for by statute or contract). In sum, limiting the scope of AUTSA s displacement provision to its express terms does not produce absurd results. 15 We also find unpersuasive Noder s argument that a literal reading of undermines the Uniform Act s purpose of creating a single, uniform tort action governing the misuse of allegedly confidential information. Although the Uniform Act promotes uniformity regarding the treatment of trade secrets, it says nothing about confidential information generally. Nor does the Uniform Act affect various other claims and remedies. See Unif. Trade Secrets Act 7 cmt. (amended 1985), 14 U.L.A. 463 (2005) (noting that the Uniform Act is not a comprehensive statement of civil remedies, and does not apply to duties imposed by law that are independent of the existence of a trade secret); see also A.R.S (B). 16 We acknowledge, as did the court of appeals, the split of authority on whether the Uniform Act displaces all common-law tort claims based on misappropriation of confidential information, whether or not the 6
7 information constitutes a statutorily defined trade secret. Compare Firetrace USA, LLC v. Jesclard, 800 F. Supp. 2d 1042, 1048 (D. Ariz. 2010) (concluding that AUTSA displaces claims based on misappropriation of confidential information that falls outside AUTSA s definition of trade secret), BlueEarth Biofuels, LLC v. Hawaiian Elec. Co., 235 P.3d 310, 327 (Haw. 2010) (same, interpreting Hawaii Uniform Trade Secrets Act), and Mortg. Specialists, Inc. v. Davey, 904 A.2d 652, 664 (N.H. 2006) (same, interpreting New Hampshire Uniform Trade Secrets Act), with Stone Castle Fin., Inc. v. Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co., 191 F. Supp. 2d 652, (E.D. Va. 2002) (holding that Virginia Uniform Trade Secrets Act displaces only those remedies based on misappropriation of a trade secret, and leaves available all other remedies for the protection of confidential information), and Burbank Grease Servs., LLC v. Sokolowski, 717 N.W.2d 781, 789 (Wis. 2006) (same, interpreting Wisconsin Uniform Trade Secrets Act). 17 We generally consider decisions from other jurisdictions when construing a statute derived from a uniform act to achieve uniformity in interpretation. See Canon Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. W.E.S. Constr. Co., 180 Ariz. 148, 154, 882 P.2d 1274, 1280 (1994). But that purpose is not served when, as here, the quest for uniformity is a fruitless endeavor and Arizona s ruling one way or the other neither fosters nor hinders national uniformity. Bunker s Glass Co. v. Pilkington, PLC, 206 Ariz. 9, 15 16, 75 P.3d 99, 105 (2003). 18 In addition, AUTSA does not contain the Uniform Act s directive that [t]his [Act] shall be applied and construed to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this [Act] among states enacting it. Unif. Trade Secrets Act 8 (amended 1985), 14 U.L.A. 656 (2005) (second and third brackets in original). Because other statutes derived from uniform acts include similar language, see, e.g., A.R.S , , , , , , , , , its absence from AUTSA suggests that the legislature intentionally omitted it. See Ballesteros v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wis., 226 Ariz. 345, , 248 P.3d 193, 197 (2011). Even when the legislature has adopted a uniformity clause, we have not felt compelled to follow other courts decisions. Bunker s Glass, 206 Ariz. at , 75 P.3d at 102 (declining to follow federal precedent even though A.R.S provides that in construing this article, the courts may use as a guide interpretations given by the federal courts to comparable federal antitrust statutes ). 7
8 19 Absent a uniformity directive in AUTSA, and given s clear text and the split of authority on the preemptive scope of similar provisions, we do not find the conflicting views of other courts helpful. 20 We do not decide today what aspects, if any, of the confidential information alleged in Orca s unfair-competition claim might fall within AUTSA s broad definition of trade secret and therefore be displaced. See Calisi v. Unified Fin. Servs., LLC, 232 Ariz. 103, , 302 P.3d 628, 634 (App. 2013) ( Although there may be substantial overlap between confidential information and trade secrets, they are not synonymous. ); Enter. Leasing Co., 197 Ariz. at , 3 P.3d at 1069 (noting AUTSA s rather expansive definition of trade secret ). That determination will not hinge on the claim s label, but rather will depend on discovery and further litigation that has not yet occurred. 21 Nor do we decide whether Arizona recognizes a common-law claim for unfair competition as alleged in Orca s complaint. Cf. Restatement (First) of Torts 757, 759 (1939) (enumerating several theories of liability, including disclosure or use of another s trade secret, and improper acquisition of information, whether or not it constitutes a trade secret, to advance a rival business interest). Compare Fairway Constructors, Inc. v. Ahern, 193 Ariz. 122, , 970 P.2d 954, 956 (App. 1998) (finding plaintiff s unfair-competition claim preempted by federal copyright law, and noting that such a claim is based on principles of equity and encompasses several tort theories, including misappropriation ), with Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition 1 cmt. g (1995) (noting that the specific forms of unfair competition [described therein] do not fully exhaust the scope of statutory or common law liability for unfair methods of competition ), and Restatement (Second) of Agency 395, 396 (1958) (describing agent s duty not to use or disclose confidential information acquired during the course of his agency in competition with principal). 22 Assuming the viability of a common-law claim for misappropriation of confidential information that falls outside AUTSA s definition of trade secret, we hold that AUTSA does not, as a matter of law, displace Orca s unfair-competition claim. If such broad displacement was intended, the legislature was required to express that intent clearly. D. 8
9 III. 23 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the superior court s dismissal of Orca s unfair-competition claim and remand the case to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Although we agree with the result reached by the court of appeals, we order of its opinion depublished pursuant to Rule 111(g), Rules of the Supreme Court. 9
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF A RIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF A RIZONA CECELIA M. LEWIS AND RANDALL LEWIS, A MARRIED COUPLE Plaintiffs/Appellants v. RAY C. D EBORD AND ANNE N ELSON-D EBORD, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Defendants/Appellees
More informationTitle 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE
Title 10: COMMERCE AND TRADE Chapter 302: UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT Table of Contents Part 4. TRADEMARKS AND NAMES... Section 1541. SHORT TITLE... 3 Section 1542. DEFINITIONS... 3 Section 1543. INJUNCTIVE
More informationMILENA WALLACE, a single woman, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MILENA
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, an Illinois insurance company, Plaintiff/Appellant, 1 CA-CV 10-0464 DEPARTMENT D O P I N I O N v. ERIK T. LUTZ
More informationTrade Secrets Acts Compared to the UTSA
UTSA Version Adopted 1985 version 1985 Federal 18 U.S.C. 1831-1839 Economic Espionage Act / Defend Trade Secrets Act Preamble As used in this [Act], unless the context requires otherwise: 1839. Definitions
More informationMARICOPA COUNTY SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, a body politic for and dba MARICOPA INTEGRATED HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant/Appellant. No.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE BRANDON OROSCO and JENNIFER OROSCO, husband and wife, individually, and as parents and next friends of KAYLEN OROSCO, MARISSA OROSCO, and SILAS OROSCO, Plaintiffs/Appellees,
More informationSUBTITLE 12. MARYLAND UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
Document 1 of 10 Maryland Code/COMMERCIAL LAW/TITLE 11. TRADE REGULATION/SUBTITLE 12. MARYLAND UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT SUBTITLE 12. MARYLAND UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT Document 2 of 10 11-1201. Definitions.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc JOHN F. HOGAN, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-11-0115-PR Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-CV-10-0385 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationRHYTHM MOTOR SPORTS, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationCITY CENTER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, LLC; INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., JERRY AND CINDY ALDRIDGE, Petitioners,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CITY CENTER EXECUTIVE PLAZA, LLC; INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., JERRY AND CINDY ALDRIDGE, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE LEE F. JANTZEN, Judge of the SUPERIOR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE HERMAN MATHEWS, by and through his Guardian and Conservator, VYNTRICE MATHEWS, v. Plaintiff/Appellee, LIFE CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC., a Tennessee
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc PAULINE COSPER, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CV-11-0083-PR Petitioner, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division One ) No. 1 CA-SA 10-0266 THE HONORABLE JOHN CHRISTIAN REA, )
More informationTERRY YAHWEH, Plaintiff/Appellant, CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE TERRY YAHWEH, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 16-0270 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2015-011887
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. Argued: October 15, 2014 Opinion Issued: April 30, 2015
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA AMERICAN POWER PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION; LFMG/APP, LLC, AN ARIZONA CORPORATION, Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v.
More informationANTHONY-ERIC EMERSON, Plaintiff/Appellant, JEANETTE GARCIA and KAREN L. O'CONNOR, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE RSP ARCHITECTS, LTD., ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0545 a Minnesota corporation, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) ) v. ) DEPARTMENT C ) FIVE STAR DEVELOPMENT RESORT
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA LEGACY FOUNDATION ACTION FUND, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITIZENS CLEAN ELECTIONS COMMISSION, Defendant/Appellee. No. CV-16-0306-PR Filed January 25, 2018 COUNSEL:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE THOMAS E. BLANKENBAKER, D.C., an Arizona licensed chiropractic physician; SHAWN WHERRY, D.C., an Arizona licensed chiropractic physician; EMILIA INDOMENICO,
More informationLAW ALERT. Arizona Court of Appeals Reinforces Notice of Claim Requirement
LAW ALERT Our Law Alerts are published on a regular basis and contain recent Arizona cases of interest. If you would like to subscribe to these alerts, please email marketing@jshfirm.com. You can view
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA SIRRAH ENTERPRISES, LLC, AN ARIZONA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/Appellant, v. WAYNE AND JACQUELINE WUNDERLICH, HUSBAND AND WIFE, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Appellees.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: COUNSEL: DIANE MERRILL, Petitioner/Appellee, v. ROBERT KENNETH MERRILL, Respondent/Appellant. No. CV-15-0028-PR Filed December 15, 2015
More informationVOLNEY FIKE, IV, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE VOLNEY
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationRALPH JOHN CHAPA, Plaintiff/Appellant, MATTHEW B. BARKER. Defendant/Appellee, No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationUS EXPRESS LEASING, INC.; CIT TECHNOLOGY FINANCING SERVICES, INC.; BANC OF AMERICA LEASING & CAPITAL, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellees,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationNo. 2 CA-CV Filed September 30, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN RE $70,070 IN U.S. CURRENCY No. 2 CA-CV 2014-0013 Filed September 30, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County Nos. S1100CV201301076 and S1100CV201301129
More informationMEMORANDUM OVERVIEW OF THE UNIFORM TRADE SECRETS ACT
To: New Jersey Law Revision Commission From: Staff Re: Uniform Trade Secrets Act Date: March 10, 2008 MEMORANDUM As directed by the Commission at its January meeting, this memorandum examines the Uniform
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA COUNSEL: CHARLES W. STENZ, DECEASED, Petitioner Employee, ELIZABETH STENZ, WIDOW, Petitioner, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ARIZONA, Respondent, CITY OF TUCSON,
More informationAA AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Appellee, JOHN LEWANDOWSKI, an unmarried man, Defendant/Appellant.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationCase: 1:10-cv Document #: 185 Filed: 02/24/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:2389
Case: 1:10-cv-03770 Document #: 185 Filed: 02/24/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:2389 MILLER UK LTD. AND MILLER INTERNATIONAL LTD., IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN
More informationROBERT PHILLIPS, Plaintiff/Appellee, CRAIG E. GARCIA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ROBERT PHILLIPS, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. CRAIG E. GARCIA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0239 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV2012-090337
More informationNo. 1 CA-CV FILED Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV The Honorable Dawn M.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE BROADBAND DYNAMICS, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. SATCOM MARKETING, INC., et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 17-0102 FILED 3-1-2018 Appeal from the Superior
More informationIn the Matter of the Estate of: AUGUSTA A. GANONI, Deceased. WHITNEY L. SORRELL, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant,
In the ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE In the Matter of the Estate of: AUGUSTA A. GANONI, Deceased WHITNEY L. SORRELL, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. JOY GAARDE-MORTON, as Putative Trustee
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JACKIE ABBOTT; ROBERT BERGANSKY; RAYMOND BROWN; NICHOLAS BIGLER; RICHARD CAMPUZANO; DALTON GORMEY; TRACY JAMES; STEPHANIE KRUEGER; ZAINAB MOHAMED; ROBERT PIERSON;
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA CAVE CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT; CASA GRANDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; CRANE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; PALOMINAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; YUMA UNION
More informationAnything but Uniform: A State-By-State Comparison of the Key Differences of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by Sid Leach Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Anything but Uniform: A State-By-State Comparison of the Key Differences of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act by Sid Leach Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. Citing the commercial importance of state trade secret law to
More informationBARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL ALERT!
BARTKO ZANKEL BUNZEL ALERT! PRESIDENT SIGNS DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2016 : FEDERAL JURISDICTION FOR TRADE SECRET ACTIONS Introduction. For many years, litigants have had original federal court jurisdiction
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA JUAN CARLOS VICENTE SANCHEZ Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE TINA R. AINLEY, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF YAVAPAI
More informationPlaintiffs/Appellants, Defendant/Appellee. No. 2 CA-CV Filed August 22, 2017
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO SEAN SWENSON, A MARRIED MAN; AND BRENT SWENSON, A SINGLE MAN, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. COUNTY OF PINAL, AN ARIZONA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND PUBLIC ENTITY,
More informationSTATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, Maricopa County Attorney, Petitioner,
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationDANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, No. 2 CA-CV Filed July 21, 2017
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO DANTAN SALDAÑA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CHARLES RYAN, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MARLENE COFFEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY WARDEN, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationJOHN GRANVILLE, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, VINCE LEROY HOWARD and JANE DOE HOWARD, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE JOHN GRANVILLE, Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. VINCE LEROY HOWARD and JANE DOE HOWARD, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees. No.
More informationGottschlich & Portune, LLP
Defense of Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Martin A. Foos June 9, 2017 Gottschlich & Portune, LLP 1 Defense of Trade Secrets Act of 2016 Effective May 11, 2016 Previous attempts to pass the Act in 2013, 2014,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE KOOL RADIATORS, INC, an Arizona 1 CA-CV 11-0071 corporation, DEPARTMENT A Plaintiff/Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. STEPHEN EVANS and JANE DOE EVANS,
More informationMARK E. SCHLUSSEL, Petitioner,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MARK E. SCHLUSSEL, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS GERLACH, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of MARICOPA, Respondent
More informationmay recover its non-taxable costs as part of an award of attorneys fees under Arizona
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc AHWATUKEE CUSTOM ESTATES ) Supreme Court MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., ) No. CV-97-0495-PR an Arizona non-profit corporation, ) ) Court of Appeals Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationELIZABETH S. STEWART, Plaintiff/Appellee, STERLING MOBILE SERVICES, INC., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellant. No.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ELIZABETH
More informationCOMMERCE REALTY ADVISORS, LTD; AND CRA, LLC, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) Arizona Supreme Court ) No. CR-10-0019-PR Respondent, ) ) Court of Appeals v. ) Division Two ) No. 2 CA-CR 09-0151 PRPC BRAD ALAN BOWSHER, ) ) Pima
More informationZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL J. HOELLER, an individual; and AZAR F. GHAFARI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE PAWN 1ST, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, v. Plaintiff/Appellant, CITY OF PHOENIX, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona; BOARD
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ROBERT BEHRENS and TERI BEHRENS, husband and wife, individually and as parents and next friend of CHRISTOPHER BEHRENS and MATTHEW BEHRENS, minors,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. MARTIN DAVID SALAZAR-MERCADO, Appellant. No. CR-13-0244-PR Filed May 29, 2014 Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County The
More informationJERRID ALLEN and JADE ALLEN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY a Municipal Corporation of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE JERRID ALLEN and JADE ALLEN, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY a Municipal Corporation of Arizona, Defendant/Appellee. No.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE
More informationDIVISION ONE. ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SHELLEY MAGNESS and COLORADO STATE BANK & TRUST COMPANY, N.A., Co-Trustees of The Shelley Magness Trust UDA 6/25/2000, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE MANUEL SALDATE, a married man, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. WILLIAM G. MONTGOMERY, MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY ex rel. MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY S OFFICE, an
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationRS INDUSTRIES, INC. and SUN MECHANICAL CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiffs/Appellants, J. SCOTT and BEVERLY CANDRIAN, Defendants/Appellees.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE RS INDUSTRIES, INC. and SUN MECHANICAL CONTRACTING, INC., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. J. SCOTT and BEVERLY CANDRIAN, Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0035
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII PROPERTY RIGHTS LAW GROUP, P.C., an Illinois Professional Corporation, vs. Plaintiffs, SANDRA D. LYNCH, JOHN KANG, alias Lee Miller; and KEALA
More informationDR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE DR. KRISHNA M. PINNAMANENI, individually, and as Trustee of THE KRISHNA M. AND BHAVANI K. PINNAMANENI REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ARIZONA
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LIGHTHOUSE SPORTSWEAR, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED July 2, 2013 v No. 310777 Ingham Circuit Court MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC LC No. 11-000854-CK ASSOCIATION,
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Court of Appeals McKeig, J.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A17-1210 Court of Appeals McKeig, J. In re the Matter of the Annexation of Certain Real Property to the City of Proctor Filed: March 27, 2019 from Midway Township Office
More informationETHAN NEWMAN, Plaintiff/Appellee,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ETHAN NEWMAN, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL-ARIZONA, INC., a Delaware corporation, dba SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL ARIZONA (SCOTTSDALE CAMPUS);
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz.R.Sup.Ct. 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz.R.Crim.P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
More informationMICHAEL RUSSO, Plaintiff/Appellant,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE MICHAEL RUSSO, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STEVEN E. BARGER and CAROL BARGER, husband and wife; ALAN R. MISHKIN and CAROL MISHKIN, husband and wife, Defendants/Appellees.
More informationSPQR Venture, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant,
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE SPQR Venture, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. ANDREA S. ROBERTSON (fka ANDREA S. WECK) and BRADLEY J. ROBERTSON, wife and husband, Defendants/Appellees.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) No. 1 CA-CV 09-0174 LEBARON PROPERTIES, LLC, an ) Arizona limited liability company,) DEPARTMENT A ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) O P I N I O N ) v. )
More informationLORETTA DONOVAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, YAVAPAI COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DBA: YAVAPAI COLLEGE, Defendant/Appellee.
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE LORETTA DONOVAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. YAVAPAI COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DBA: YAVAPAI COLLEGE, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 17-0290 FILED 5-31-2018
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE JERRY D. COOK, a single man, ) No. 1 CA-CV 12-0258 ) Plaintiff/Counterdefendant/) DEPARTMENT D Appellant,) ) O P I N I O N v. ) ) TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE SALVATORE BALESTRIERI, ) 1 CA-CV 12-0089 ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) DEPARTMENT C ) v. ) O P I N I O N ) (As Modified) DAVID A. BALESTRIERI, ) ) Defendant/Appellee.
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A Concurring, Page, and Wright, J.J. Marshall Helmberger, Took no part, Lillehaug, J.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN SUPREME COURT A12-0327 Court of Appeals Gildea, C.J. Concurring, Page, and Wright, J.J. Marshall Helmberger, Took no part, Lillehaug, J. Respondent, vs. Filed: November 20, 2013 Office
More informationNo. 09SC963 - Gognat v. Ellsworth: Uniform Trade Secrets Act statute of limitations definition of trade secret
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA ex rel. RICHARD M. ROMLEY, Maricopa County Attorney, v. Petitioner, THE HONORABLE DOUGLAS RAYES, Judge of the SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
More informationJO ELLA RAMSEY, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE JO ELLA RAMSEY, an individual, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. ARIZONA REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0355 Appeal from the Superior Court
More informationDefendants/Appellants. No. 2 CA-CV Filed May 7, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO MUNGER CHADWICK, P.L.C., AN ARIZONA PROFESSIONAL LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. FARWEST DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHWEST, LLC,
More informationARIZONA STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. STATE: POLITICAL PARTIES NOT PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING DONATIONS FOR GENERAL EXPENSES
ARIZONA STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY V. STATE: POLITICAL PARTIES NOT PROHIBITED FROM RECEIVING DONATIONS FOR GENERAL EXPENSES Kathleen Brody I. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND In a unanimous decision authored
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Mohave County
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE BUSTER JOHNSON, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MOHAVE COUNTY, a body politic, PETE BYERS, THOMAS STOCKWELL, as members of the Board of Supervisors, Mohave
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County. Cause No.
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c; ARCAP 28(c; Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT OF
More informationLitigation Webinar Series. Trade Secret Protection and the Defend Trade Secrets Act: What s New, What s Different? Olga May Principal San Diego, CA
March 30, 2017 Litigation Webinar Series Trade Secret Protection and the Defend Trade Secrets Act: What s New, What s Different? Olga May Principal San Diego, CA Martina Hufnal Principal Wilmington, DE
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) Special Action from the Superior Court in Maricopa County The Honorable Peter C. Reinstein, Judge AFFIRMED
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA DUANE LYNN, Petitioner, v. Respondent Judge, HON. PETER C. REINSTEIN, JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA, in and for the County of Maricopa, Real Parties in Interest.
More informationGrafton Data Systems, Inc. Craig Moore, et al. No CV-353 ORDER
MERRIMACK, SS SUPERIOR COURT Grafton Data Systems, Inc. v. Craig Moore, et al. No. 217-2016-CV-353 ORDER The Plaintiff, Grafton Data Systems, Inc. ( Grafton ), moves for a preliminary injunction against
More informationDefendants/Appellants. No. 2 CA-CV Filed August 26, 2014
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO CANYON COMMUNITY BANK, AN ARIZONA BANKING CORPORATION, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. JAMES F. ALDERSON AND CONNIE B. ALDERSON, HUSBAND AND WIFE; ALDERSON FAMILY TRUST,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I. ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-28901 31-DEC-2013 09:48 AM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I ---o0o--- STATE OF HAWAI I, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, vs. ROBERT J.
More informationKARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE KARL and FABIANA STAUFFER, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. PREMIER SERVICE MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants/Appellees. No. 1 CA-CV 15-0026 Appeal from the Superior
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 150
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 150 Court of Appeals No. 13CA0658 City and County of Denver District Court No. 11CV2749 Honorable Herbert L. Stern, III, Judge State of Colorado, ex rel. John W. Suthers,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA DIANE M. FLYNN AND ROBERT FLYNN, WIFE AND HUSBAND Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SARAH W. CAMPBELL, Defendant/Appellee. No. CV-16-0199-PR Filed September 22, 2017
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
Case 1:05-cv-00259 Document 17 Filed 12/07/2005 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION ELENA CISNEROS, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL NO. B-05-259
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA LOUIS HOFFMAN, A QUALIFIED ELECTOR; AND AMY CHAN, A QUALIFIED ELECTOR, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. MICHELE REAGAN, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS ARIZONA SECRETARY
More informationJENNIFER NUNEZ f/k/a JENNIFER GORDON, Petitioner,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationRICKSON LIM, a single man, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN RE SEARCH WARRANT FOR RECORDS FROM AT&T. Argued: January 17, 2017 Opinion Issued: June 9, 2017
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to motions for rehearing under Rule 22 as well as formal revision before publication in the New Hampshire Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter, Supreme
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 IN THE COURT
More informationMIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Plaintiff/Appellee, YARED AMELGA, Defendant/Appellant. No. 1 CA-CV
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More information